Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s Arrest

Is this issue really about trusting the police, though? It seems to me that the question is whether racism is hiding under every rock. The police are just a tool used by the majority to enforce their rampant racism, right?

Prime Junta said:

Oh, for sure -- compared to Ukraine or Russia, for example, your cops are rainbows over a society of unicorns.

Click to expand...

I was actually going to throw Russia and Ukraine into the mix earlier. My cousin married a woman from the Ukraine. He met her on the internet and visisted her there several times before they eventually married and relocated here.

I was amazed at some of the stories they told me about the police, and officials in general over there. It seems most matters literally come down to who you can afford to pay off.

dteowner said:

Is this issue really about trusting the police, though? It seems to me that the question is whether racism is hiding under every rock. The police are just a tool used by the majority to enforce their rampant racism, right?

Click to expand...

I think it is really about trusting the police.

I also think that racist cops are tolerated -- both by the force itself and (white) society outside it -- broadly enough that it's not surprising that minorities often assume by default that (white) cops are racists, even if they aren't really. After all, it only takes a couple of incidents to create, reinforce, and harden this perception. It's a lot more difficult to change it, and I also think the police force hasn't done all that much to try to change it.

Again, uninformed speculation -- but I believe that you could find research out there to bring some harder facts into the discussion, if you felt like it.

Prime Junta said:

Almost every immigrant group that's come to the US until now has managed it, though. Irish, Italian, Chinese, Jewish, and Japanese immigrants all used to be discriminated against, but are no longer -- and many of them have retained, and continue to celebrate, their particular identity. Celebrating your differences doesn't necessarily result in discrimination based on them.

Click to expand...

I don't know that those groups have maintained a seperate cultural identity to anywhere near the level of blacks and hispanics (the Jews would probably be the closest), but let's go with it. That leads to the obvious question, why haven't the blacks (as highlighted by this case) and hispanics managed to get it done? The blacks have been here longer than all the groups you mention and their emancipation (if we say that their "clock" doesn't start until they're free) pre-dates the Irish and Italian waves by decades. Coming out of slavery, they started with nothing, but the Irish wave in particular started with the very same nothing--actually worse since the emancipated blacks didn't have to up sticks across an ocean before even getting started. We can't really hang it purely on physical appearance since the Asians have gotten it done. So what's the holdup? Perhaps the hispanics just haven't had time to find their spot yet, but that doesn't hold for African Americans.

dteowner said:

I don't know that those groups have maintained a seperate cultural identity to anywhere near the level of blacks and hispanics (the Jews would probably be the closest), but let's go with it. That leads to the obvious question, why haven't the blacks (as highlighted by this case) and hispanics managed to get it done? The blacks have been here longer than all the groups you mention and their emancipation (if we say that their "clock" doesn't start until they're free) pre-dates the Irish and Italian waves by decades. Coming out of slavery, they started with nothing, but the Irish wave in particular started with the very same nothing--actually worse since the emancipated blacks didn't have to up sticks across an ocean before even getting started. We can't really hang it purely on physical appearance since the Asians have gotten it done. So what's the holdup? Perhaps the hispanics just haven't had time to find their spot yet, but that doesn't hold for African Americans.

Click to expand...

I think the deck always was stacked against blacks much more strongly than against any of these other groups. Slavery. Explicitly racist laws. Tolerance of explicitly racist associations. Eugenics. Racial theories that placed blacks at the lowest rung of humanity, barely above apes. Cultural marginalization. Ghettoization. Creation of a "sour grapes" counterculture that idolizes ballers and rappers and gangstas because being a doctor or professor or business executive seems so far out of reach. That sort of thing.

There's something else, too. Every ethnic group that came to the US did so in order to seek a better life, with two exceptions: blacks and Native Americans. I don't think it's entirely a coincidence that these are the two groups with the biggest problems and most deeply entrenched prejudices.

In fact, a few articles I've read point out that the social outcomes for recent black immigrants -- West Indians, for example -- are much better than for the bulk of American blacks, and track outcomes for other immigrant groups more closely than the rest of black America. Colin Powell and Barack Obama are two prominent examples.

Prime Junta said:

Since I don't have the research to back up my claim, I hereby withdraw it. Consider it uninformed speculation. Do you think it's entirely without merit, though, in your equally uninformed opinion?

Click to expand...

I never did answer this question, and it's a good one. My equally uninformed opinion is that we have more trouble because of cultural issues rather than police issues. We have no respect for authority figures in this country (police, teachers) because we've declawed them--just as in this case, there's generally no consequence for ignoring or even abusing them. So, we end up with lots more people challenging the police into action, creating a situation when the police weren't looking for one. Although you enlightened Euros, IMO, keep a much closer eye on abuse of power than we do, you don't seem to go looking for trouble like we do. The last widely reported police power problem you had were the Greek riots. Whether those police overstepped their bounds or not is a different debate, but the common thread to that situation is that you had a bunch of punk kids looking for trouble and suddenly abuse of power is back on the table.

A lots been said while I was sleeping. I'm in a hurry atm, but I wanted to chime in quickly before I'm out the door. IMO, the first thing to get straight is that Gates shouldn't have been arrested, and that's the first thing the expert got straight in PJ's quote:

From my own experience and what I have learned about the incident, I highly doubt that I would have ordered the arrest of Professor Gates for any charge.

Click to expand...

That's the only conclusion possible since, not only weren't any charges filed, authorities promptly apologized to Gates and have promised to conduct an investigation.

The expert went on to say:

I do, however, think that based on his actions as alleged by Sergeant Crowley, his arrest was somewhat plausible within the universe of possible outcomes to the incident. That still does not mean that the cops in question weren’t acting “stupidly,” as President Obama suggested. It is possible to do a lawful thing that is stupid, and that is why officers have discretion in many cases.

Click to expand...

That's why I'm suggesting Crowley is stupid. The police are part of the system, are familiar with the law and know how it all actually works. Folks like Gates have no firsthand knowledge and have never experienced anything like being arrested. Police are in a position to be bullies whenever they want, and it's up to them to avoid the temptation.

I imagine Crowley didn't like it when gates became irritated. That's tough. I imagine he thought he was doing his job correctly, and that Gates was "playing the race card." That's tough too. Gates is a citizen, and Crowley is a public servant. It's not OK to just slap the cuffs on somebody and cart them off to jail whenever you feel like it for no purpose whatsoever.

Crowley and his entire department will be investigated, and I suspect there will be changes made for the better. He probably won't like that either, but....

dteowner said:

I never did answer this question, and it's a good one. My equally uninformed opinion is that we have more trouble because of cultural issues rather than police issues. We have no respect for authority figures in this country (police, teachers) because we've declawed them--just as in this case, there's generally no consequence for ignoring or even abusing them. So, we end up with lots more people challenging the police into action, creating a situation when the police weren't looking for one. Although you enlightened Euros, IMO, keep a much closer eye on abuse of power than we do, you don't seem to go looking for trouble like we do. The last widely reported police power problem you had were the Greek riots. Whether those police overstepped their bounds or not is a different debate, but the common thread to that situation is that you had a bunch of punk kids looking for trouble and suddenly abuse of power is back on the table.

Click to expand...

Thing is, dte, as I said above, I believe the two things are two sides of the same coin. Oversight of the police forces -- and the experience that abuse of power gets investigated and punished -- is a requirement for trusting them. If we trust our police to be fair, it's because they can *prove* they're fair. Any suspicion that they're not goes through the courts -- and, most of the time, they come out with a clean bill of health. If they have our respect, it's because they've *earned* it -- and they work hard to keep it, and know that they'll lose it if they abuse it.

I don't know jack shit about the police in Greece, by the way -- but the things I've heard aren't all good. I do have a very high opinion of the police forces in most of Northwestern Europe, though -- and the French one isn't half bad either.

Prime Junta said:

But I do think that in many countries, relations between cops and the communities making up their societies are a good deal better, too, with a great deal more trust and respect on both sides. I believe Finland to be one such country, and I believe that one of the reasons is that we take potential and actual police abuse of authority very seriously. IOW, I see these things as two sides of the same coin; however, I get a feeling that some people on this thread (dte, skaven, perhaps you) feel that they're at odds with each other.

Click to expand...

Odds with each other? Do you mean monitoring of the police so they don't abuse their authority? If so then I agree with you that there should be monitors in place. Like what I said about the IA-Internal Affairs-and news media jumping over real stories. I'm not so naive as to think that without these monitors that they wouldn't abuse their authority.

This story though, lol, is ridiculous. No one should be able to mouth off to a cop without there being some kind of consequence like a fine or a nice little trip downtown or both. I don't care who you are white, black, drug dealer, professor, doctor, hooker or whatever.

Squeek said:

A lots been said while I was sleeping. I'm in a hurry atm, but I wanted to chime in quickly before I'm out the door. IMO, the first thing to get straight is that Gates shouldn't have been arrested, and that's the first thing the expert got straight in PJ's quote:

The expert went on to say:

........

Click to expand...

And who exactly is this "expert"? Was he present when the incident occurred?

Squeek said:

Crowley and his entire department will be investigated, and I suspect there will be changes made for the better. He probably won't like that either, but...

Click to expand...

Care to wager?

I think you're missing the point on the Greek example. The Greek police might be one step short of the Gestapo for all I know. BUT, the whole world didn't hear any accusations until a bunch of punks went looking for trouble. They found it, and suddenly everybody is crying about abuse of power.

This really ends up paralleling several other discussions we've had. Let's say (maybe correct, maybe not) that Gates was an instigator but Officer Crowley's response was disproportionate. Do you hammer the disproportionate response or do you go after the origin of the situation? As usual, I'm willing to excuse the response because I say the originator chose to provoke a response (appropriate or well beyond).

skavenhorde said:

Odds with each other? Do you mean monitoring of the police so they don't abuse their authority? If so then I agree with you that there should be monitors in place. Like what I said about the IA-Internal Affairs-and news media jumping over real stories. I'm not so naive as to think that without these monitors that they wouldn't abuse their authority.

Click to expand...

Right, that's what I meant. What do you think, does IA work effectively enough that most instances of abuse are actually caught and punished?

This story though, lol, is ridiculous. No one should be able to mouth off to a cop without there being some kind of consequence like a fine or a nice little trip downtown or both. I don't care who you are white, black, drug dealer, professor, doctor, hooker or whatever.

Click to expand...

Why?

JDR13 said:

And who exactly is this "expert"? Was he present when the incident occurred?

Click to expand...

He's a captain in the NYPD, currently working in IA on police corruption. You might want to read the article; it's quite good.

dteowner said:

I think you're missing the point on the Greek example. The Greek police might be one step short of the Gestapo for all I know. BUT, the whole world didn't hear any accusations until a bunch of punks went looking for trouble. They found it, and suddenly everybody is crying about abuse of power.

Click to expand...

Except they're not. At least the media I'm reading -- and most people I've talked to about this -- seem to side with the cops in this case.

This really ends up paralleling several other discussions we've had. Let's say (maybe correct, maybe not) that Gates was an instigator but Officer Crowley's response was disproportionate. Do you hammer the disproportionate response or do you go after the origin of the situation? As usual, I'm willing to excuse the response because I say the originator chose to provoke a response (appropriate or well beyond).

Click to expand...

And, as usual, I believe that letting the disproportionate response go unpunished is far more dangerous to society than letting originator get away with the provocation. Asymmetry of power again.

Prime Junta said:

And, as usual, I believe that letting the disproportionate response go unpunished is far more dangerous to society than letting originator get away with the provocation. Asymmetry of power again.

Click to expand...

You let the lunatics run the asylum and I kill the patients just to be cautious. Well then, I guess we've got this one sewn up. Next issue.

Good to have you back, PJ. You might be woefully misguided, but your intellect has been sorely missed. There was just too much for magerette and benedict to do to offset my commanding literacy and eminent correctness. Rith and I were running amok. Amok, I tell you.

Walp, it was fun while it lasted.

Glancing through a few pages of threads, though, it does look like I missed out on a whole bunch of... interesting things. Flattering to hear I've been missed.

Prime Junta said:

He's a captain in the NYPD, currently working in IA on police corruption. You might want to read the article; it's quite good.

Click to expand...

Read it, I'm just not sure where squeek gets the impression that Crowley was more at fault than Gates. The article seemed to view both sides equally.

Prime Junta said:

Right, that's what I meant. What do you think, does IA work effectively enough that most instances of abuse are actually caught and punished?

Why?

Click to expand...

Your first Question:
That, my friend, I can't even hazard a guess at because it would be superfial and biased at best. I know nothing about that part of the force other than they are the ones that watch the officers. All of my knowledge about them is through TV programs, lol. But if I go out on a limb here then I would say that, yes it could be improved. Just like about every facet of our government needs to be improved.

As to why I think that everday citizens shouldn't be able to mouth off or verbally abuse a police officer, well the reason is quite simple. They have a job that is like no ordinary job. When these professors or doctors or Mel Gibsons get a job where you are constantly on guard and in a worst case scenerio they could be killed by some crazed idiot, then I would say they have the right to mouth off at them because they will understand what it means to be a cop. We ordinary citizens don't deal with death. We don't deal with the lowest of our society. They do and they do it every single day. They do it so that when we can walk down the street safe in the knowledge that someone probably isn't going to kill me. They are the deterant to anarchy, if you don't mind me getting a little melodramatic for a moment But truly just put yourself in there shoes and try to imagine what it means to be a cop. No one gets that right to verbally abuse him/her not until they walked a few miles in their shoes.

You can disagree of course. I'm not saying if you think that you're in the right to just keep silent. I'm saying discuss it without the hatred or the yelling or anything of that nature. He deserves enough respect to be shown that little courtesy and if he's a jerk and doesn't care (met a few of those too)Well then shouting and yelling sure won't help your case. It'll probably make it worse.

But the bottom line is that they deserve the respect and some form of civility.

Oh my, this was a lot longer than I had inteded it to be. Sorry about that PJ I know you got three or four discussions going on right now

EDIT:

Prime Junta said:

Walp, it was fun while it lasted.

Glancing through a few pages of threads, though, it does look like I missed out on a whole bunch of... interesting things. Flattering to hear I've been missed.

Click to expand...

You leaving again? Why?

EDIT#2 Nevermind I just read DTE post right about that one. I thought you were saying "It was fun while it lasted" which could of meant you're leaving. If taken out of context. Nevermind then.

Edit #3 Ok guys I'm off to bed. Have fun discussing this. It really has been an interesting and informative thread. IMO, more so than your usual P&R thread. I'll catch up with you guys tomorrow and defend the shield, so to speak

skavenhorde said:

Your first Question:
That, my friend, I can't even hazard a guess at because it would be superfial and biased at best. I know nothing about that part of the force other than they are the ones that watch the officers. All of my knowledge about them is through TV programs, lol. But if I go out on a limb here then I would say that, yes it could be improved. Just like about every facet of our government needs to be improved.

Click to expand...

Everything could be improved, for sure. That doesn't really answer the question, though. In my (uninformed) opinion, though, the system doesn't appear to be working very well. I get this impression because most of the cases that do get any exposure appear to do so due to happenstance -- somebody managed to take a cell phone video, or the guy involved was the President's personal friend, or something like that. That suggests that most cases, when there's nobody watching, simply get quietly squelched.

As to why I think that everday citizens shouldn't be able to mouth off or verbally abuse a police officer, well the reason is quite simple. They have a job that is like no ordinary job. When these professors or doctors or Mel Gibsons get a job where you are constantly on guard and in a worst case scenerio they could be killed by some crazed idiot, then I would say they have the right to mouth off at them because they will understand what it means to be a cop. We ordinary citizens don't deal with death. We don't deal with the lowest of our society. They do and they do it every single day. They do it so that when we can walk down the street safe in the knowledge that someone probably isn't going to kill me. They are the deterant to anarchy, if you don't mind me getting a little melodramatic for a moment But truly just put yourself in there shoes and try to imagine what it means to be a cop. No one gets that right to verbally abuse him/her not until they walked a few miles in their shoes.

Click to expand...

I agree that cops deserve our respect because of all that. However, precisely *because* of all that, I expect cops to be able to handle merely verbal situations without resorting to arrests or use of force. If a cop can't handle a Harvard professor calling him names without slapping him in cuffs, how do you expect him to handle genuinely tense situations?

Prime Junta said:

Everything could be improved, for sure. That doesn't really answer the question, though. In my (uninformed) opinion, though, the system doesn't appear to be working very well. I get this impression because most of the cases that do get any exposure appear to do so due to happenstance -- somebody managed to take a cell phone video, or the guy involved was the President's personal friend, or something like that. That suggests that most cases, when there's nobody watching, simply get quietly squelched.



I agree that cops deserve our respect because of all that. However, precisely *because* of all that, I expect cops to be able to handle merely verbal situations without resorting to arrests or use of force. If a cop can't handle a Harvard professor calling him names without slapping him in cuffs, how do you expect him to handle genuinely tense situations?

Click to expand...

I know the first answer wasn't really an answer, but truly I know nothing about them. Never met one, never did any research on that part of the force. But I do see your point with the happenstance of certain cases getting prosecuted after the fact that it's been in the news. That's why I said the IA and news coverage. I'll read up a little bit about it. You've got me interested in it now.

Second:
I never said anything about use of force. That goes too far. Fine them, take them to jail, but force no and I don't consider the act of putting on cuffs "use of force".

The other point you had in that paragraph is where I differ from you. It's not about can't handle. It's about respect. You don't respect the badge and think you can hurl out insults well then why not take it up a notch and hurl out trash at them? In my eyes it is the same thing. No, I will never believe that any person has the right to do so. The police officers by the sheer fact that they are cops deserve to be treated with respect.

And with that said I really have to go to bed now it's like 3 am. See ya'll later.